Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2007 December 12

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was withdrawn by nom. Despite some merge recommendations no delete, all others keep. Non-admin closure. – sgeureka ^t•c 18:40, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Pottsylvania

Pottsylvania (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

This article asserts no notability through reliable sources, and as such is just an in-universe repetition of plot elements from the Rocky and Bullwinkle TV show articles. As such, this material is not appropriate for the encyclopedia, is also entirely duplicative and can be safely deleted. Judgesurreal777 03:46, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

• Delete: Not notable. If important to the show, it should be mentioned in one of the main articles (which it already is). - Rjd0060 04:25, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
• keep Kewp (t) 05:16, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

User:Kewp, per WP:NOREASON, please make constructive arguments as to why you think the article should be kept instead of merely throwing down a vote. This is not a vote, it is a deletion discussion. Bullzeye ^{(Ring for Service)} 05:41, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

• Merge – into the The Rocky and Bullwinkle Show piece. As a stand alone delete. Shoessss |  Chat  15:35, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Per nom. Twenty Years 15:41, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
• Merge per Shoessass 132.205.99.122 23:12, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
• While you are at it, why don't you delete most of the other Rocky & Bullwinkle articles as well? All of these articles are clearly relics from a previous era of Wikpedia, and should be purged. Anything that isn't published on the internet isn't notable! Everything that isn't notable must be removed from Wikipedia! Well done, citizen! Shoehorn 09:04, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

The purpose of Wikipedia is to have a quality encyclopedia on every topic imaginable, and there are guidelines as to what should be included, such as verifiability and notability which help us make those decisions. And if this article cannot meet those standards, the article shouldn't be on Wikipedia. Judgesurreal777 16:42, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

These guidelines appear to be little more than bureaucratic tools that serve to limit the scope of what "every topic" should include. As I said, please purge the site of everything which you do not find to be notable. It won't make WP better, but it will make you feel important. Shoehorn (talk) 19:57, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Be civil or do not participate. And secondly, the guidelines keep wikipedia from being a gameguide or a fan wiki with no credibility or quality. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 22:16, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

This is a laughable statement. If there's one thing Wikipedia is, it's a fan guide to various pop culture icons. Episode and character guides exist for all the popular and cult programs (Buffy, Star trek, and many more obscure). Is this show was Japanese and current, there wouldn't be a hint of anyone suggesting deletion. Shouldn't encyclopedias hold long-term information? 70.246.118.162 (talk) 19:47, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't think you will find, anywhere in print or on the web, reliable sources that will establish the notability of Pottsylvania as a primary subject. There is no motivation for anyone to produce primary source material about this topic. But I also don't think WP benefits from deleting this article or others of like caliber, regardless of guidelines and the bureaucratic behavior they inspire. Without articles like this, the cultural value of WP gradually decreases, until it becomes as rigid and bland as the paper encyclopedias it was intended to replace. Take the long term perspective: in ten years, is someone going to be able to find good information about this topic? Not if you delete this page, because no fansite is going to preserve this information (fansites are among the most transient sites on the web), and no "credible" site is going to show any interest in this topic at all. So go ahead, purge this page, and purge the rest of them. It is the future of WP: a self-aggrandizing resource that has no cultural value whatsoever. Shoehorn (talk) 04:29, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Hear, hear. A very cogent argument. 70.246.118.162 (talk) 19:43, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

• Keep "In-universe" is a guideline on how to and how not to phrase fiction articles, it is not a reason for deletion. The show was 40 years ago, I'm sure if someone starts digging through periodicals they could find dozens of references. See also WP:RECENTISM. Squidfryerchef (talk) 13:48, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Prove it, there has yet to be any actual demonstration of multiple notable references. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 17:49, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

• Weak keep. This is one of those articles that just seems so notable, and I am shocked that it has nary a cite. Backing up Squidfryerchef's comments, it seems that time ought to be allowed for editors to find articles or even Nick at Night cites. Bearian (talk) 17:47, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Well I am "shocked" you would claim it so notable not having produced even ONE reference; please remember wikipedia does not rely on people hunches, especially when the article has been here a long time with no improvement. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 17:49, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Placebo Effect (talk) 17:47, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

• Merge per Shoessss. It rates a paragaph or two on the Rocky and Bullwinkle Show, but no independent notability found out of universe. • Gene93k (talk) 19:09, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
• Keep inappropriate use of relisting. Further debate is NOT a substitute for "no consensus" Mandsford (talk) 19:17, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
• Weak Keep per Bearian. The article likely has notability, but it will require some work. If Judgesurreal777 is so concerned with this article degrading Wikipedia, perhaps instead of requiring everyone else to cite it, he/she can do the leg work. Just a thought. Justin ^chat 19:21, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

You see Justin, if I thought that "legwork" would improve the article, I would leave it be for someone who is interested, perhaps like yourself. But I contend that there is no "legwork" to be done, as it has no notability, so there is basically nothing to add to the article in terms of substantive encyclopedic coverage. This is a discussion to show that we can find 2-3 actual notable references so this article should be kept not deleted. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 19:26, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Actually, this is a discussion to find a consensus on whether or not it should be deleted. At this point, at best this is going to end in no consensus. Justin ^chat 23:12, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Lately, many closers seem to have enough common sense to rule out a horde of keep votes that have nothing to do with policy, and go with the side with the best policy-based argument. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 23:29, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

• Keep - I am almost always wrong on these but here goes my thinking anyway. Article dates back to 2003 and is a reference to a fictional place in a 1961 TV show. Google produces 11,500 hits. It has never raised a notability issue in the last 4 years. In my limited thinking, if Wikipedia existed in 1961 we would not be having this discussion as we would have references out the wazoo. Once a subject is deemed notable always notable. I would say based on the age of the subject matter and the age of the article it at one point met the requirements. That said... a merge would also be just fine. Gtstricky^{Talk or C} 20:30, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
• Merge per lack of demonstrated notability. I agree that The Rocky and Bullwinkle Show makes a fine merge target. – sgeureka ^t•c 20:40, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
• Keep This is one of those cases where I feel that WP:IAR is somewhat appropriate. Gtstricky and Shoehorn make fairly cogent arguments that (intentionally or unintentionally) support this. The article has a couple of references which seem to confirm the external notability, even if the coverage in those sources isn't "highly significant" in Wikipedia terms. The existing sources for these notability assertions and the assertions themselves hint at a strong potential for coverage in academic works, particularly those examining Cold War media. A cursory internet search doesn't turn up much in this regard, but at the same time, it doesn't turn up much of any source material published before 2000. It is likely that any significant source material is not well-archived online at this point, given the non-recentness of the information. I support the decision to place a tag for citation improvement on the article, as has already been done, but those participating in AfDs need to remember that there is no deadline on Wikipedia, and that AfD is NOT the place to get articles improved. LaMenta3 (talk) 20:42, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
• Comment - Alright, just stop right now, this debate is totally not grounded in reality anymore. We are not going to ignore the rules, as there is no reason to, and the article must either assert notability through reliable referencing, or it should be deleted. All these keep votes are just filibustering, and accomplish nothing. Keep votes not backed up with any actual assertion of notability are meaningless, so please stop wasting everyones time. Google searches mean nothing unless there are reliable sources within them, which is totally not a given, and "hinting at potential sources" is equally meaningless without actual proof. It is the responsibility of those who would keep the article to assert notability. Finally, it is absurd the way people voting keep are totally ignoring the nominating concerns and wikipedia policy in making their arguments, so if you are going to participate in this discussion, please look over Wikipedia policies, such as WP:RS, WP:FICTION, WP:WAF. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 21:28, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

You have made your point very clear many times. The article is now cited. Gtstricky^{Talk or C} 22:15, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

• Are these sources reliable? One is clearly a joke page. The TV Acres mention is more plot summary. The part of the Sun Times article outside the pay wall, only mentions Pottsylvania in passing. Article sources should be directly about the subject from a real world perspective (e.g. Pottsylvania as Cold War metaphor). The 3 web articles just don't do it. • Gene93k (talk) 22:37, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Sure they do. The name exists enough that people are going to come here looking for it. 3 (or 4) references are more then any article in the Category:Fictional countries Gtstricky^{Talk or C} 23:26, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

What "we" are doing is exactly as WP is intended to do. Find a consensus. The direction on this is clearly leaning towards keep (albeit, it will probably end with no consensus). Suggesting certain policies should be followed, while WP:IGNORE shouldn't is kind of one-sided don't you think? You may not like the results, but it seems you won't be content unless this is deleted, which it seems it clearly won't be. Justin ^chat 23:12, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

When the only policy you can cite to keep an article is "Ignore all rules" you should know your just arguing for argument sake and have no real ground to stand on in terms of policy. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 23:28, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

• While I can see the point being made by the folks opining delete, the issue of 1960s-era topics is a tough one to deal with because of the lack of archived sources in easy reach. I suspect there are a few sources on this topic, somewhere, but I'm not sure where to even start looking for sources on a fictional country from a cartoon. However, it is a well known name from a popular series, so I'm going to suggest at the least a merge to The Rocky and Bullwinkle Show, with a lean towards keep. Tony Fox (arf!) 21:29, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

If you suspect they exist, please get two or three of them so we will know there are actual references for this. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 23:32, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

• Comment. This discussion (scroll along to the following pages) comparing Pottsylvania with the Soviet Union, while not terribly extensive, would seem to indicate a certain amount of attention in reputable sources. Deor (talk) 00:19, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Good, you have one, now find one or two more to satisfy WP:RS which calls for multiple sources, good job, glad to see someone working on it and not just endlessly complaining.Judgesurreal777 (talk) 01:33, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't think the snippy tone is called for; I was just pointing out a source, and I haven't even registered an opinion in this AfD. I've noticed that folks who feel compelled to respond to every single comment in discussions like this usually wind up on the losing end. Deor (talk) 02:27, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Wrong, because this is a discussion, I am engaging people who wish to vote in discussion to either establish if they have a valid concern that the article is notable and know of references, or are voting out of pure ignorance, as most do. I also think its hilarious that your attacking me when the "keepers" are the ones who are being a bunch of whiners and thus being criticized, and as you have actually done something, I am not criticizing you. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 02:33, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Actually you've been rude and snippy the moment you had anyone disagree with you. You feel the article should be removed, clearly the majority does not agree. Calling the editors here "ignorant" is in itself ignorant, because the basis of your argument is that the article fails to conform to policy, when you are willing ignoring the first (and arguably, most important policy). Nobody here is whining with exception to you. The consensus is pretty clear here, 7 keeps, 2 merges, 2 deletes. I would say that qualifies as a weak keep/no consensus, and no amount of insulting is going to change that. 70.57.166.104 (talk) 03:57, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

• Comment Wow this has gotten some attention today. Again, the cartoon has been around for 40 years and is still famous, and I presume many references could be found in period magazines. But do they have to cited now to keep the article from deletion? No, that's why we have tags for such things. Squidfryerchef (talk) 03:28, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, it does, now, because otherwise it will be deleted for not being notable. There is no "presuming", now is the time for proof. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 03:39, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Sources are out there. http://news.google.com/archivesearch?tab=sn&q=pottsylvania&hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8 Squidfryerchef (talk) 04:22, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

• Keep Clearly notable. Here's another stack of sources. The only mystery is what happened to the real place of this name in Virginia? Obviously not as enduring as the fictional country :) Colonel Warden (talk) 13:05, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Enough with the random google searches, actually provide a reference, because these are useless unless we can see useable stuff. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 16:33, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

There's no requirement for anyone here to satisfy you. Enough people believe this article can be sourced and written in an encyclopedic way. So perhaps instead of making yourself look absurd in the constant bickering, accept it, and find something new to AFD. Justin ^chat 16:47, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Just enough with the random google searches, its just ridiculous pointing to it like there is a source there when you have no idea. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 17:05, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletions. -- Hiding T 10:30, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Withdraw thankfully - Ahh, while this pointless and unproductive debate with people who have no grasp of policy was going on, under our noses half a dozen out of universe sources were added, at least a few of which seem reliable, so it has established a limited notability. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 17:05, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. While episodes can be notable, there is no evidence that this particular episode is notable. Pastordavid (talk) 17:30, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Sun Hill Karma

Sun Hill Karma (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

non-notable tv episode. Ridernyc (talk) 17:47, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

• Delete as non-notable episode without much article content (WP:EPISODE). The notes section consists of original research. – sgeureka ^t•c 20:52, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
• Keep and clean up As episodes can be notable, and it appears that somebody is creating a page for all the episodes of the series. --Sharkface217 22:11, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
• Delete as a non notable episode. Whilst episodes can be notable, that has to be shown by independent sources and not unreferenced OR as we have here. Nuttah (talk) 17:50, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete, While episodes can be notable, there is no evidence that this particular episode is notable. Pastordavid (talk) 17:33, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The New Order of Things

The New Order of Things (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

non-notable tv episode. Ridernyc (talk) 17:47, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

• Redirect or delete as non-notable episode without much article content (WP:EPISODE). The notes section reads like unsourced trivia, so it shouldn't be merged. – sgeureka ^t•c 20:51, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
• Keep and clean up As episodes can be notable, and it appears that somebody is creating a page for all the episodes of the series. --Sharkface217 22:13, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
• Delete as a non notable episode. Episodes, like people, can be notable but just because someone is trying to add them all to Wikipedia the notability requirements are not abandoned. Nuttah (talk) 18:00, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Redirect. This result is a compromise. Anyone wishing to expand the article to show the episode's noteworthiness may do so. The redirect should not be undone, however, without substantial expansion. Xoloz (talk) 13:48, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The Chief Superintendent's Party

The Chief Superintendent's Party (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

non-notable tv episode. Ridernyc (talk) 17:46, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

• Redirect or delete as non-notable episode without much article content (WP:EPISODE). The notes section reads like unsourced trivia, so it shouldn't be merged. – sgeureka ^t•c 20:51, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
• Keep and clean up As episodes can be notable, and it appears that somebody is creating a page for all the episodes of the series. --Sharkface217 22:13, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. Episopdes may be notable, but there is no evidence that this one is. Pastordavid (talk) 19:51, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Redirect. This result is a compromise. Anyone wishing to expand the article to show the episode's noteworthiness may do so. The redirect should not be undone, however, without substantial expansion. Xoloz (talk) 13:49, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The Sweet Smell of Failure

The Sweet Smell of Failure (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

non-notable tv episode. Ridernyc (talk) 17:46, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

• Redirect or delete as non-notable episode without much article content (WP:EPISODE). The notes section reads like unsourced trivia, so it shouldn't be merged. – sgeureka ^t•c 20:50, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
• Keep and clean up As episodes can be notable, and it appears that somebody is creating a page for all the episodes of the series. --Sharkface217 22:13, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete. Episopdes may be notable, but there is no evidence that this one is. Pastordavid (talk) 19:52, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Wizardman 19:12, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Death of a Cracksman

Death of a Cracksman (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

non-notable tv episode. Ridernyc (talk) 17:45, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

• Delete as non-notable episode without much article content (WP:EPISODE). Nothing to merge. – sgeureka ^t•c 20:50, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
• Keep and clean up As episodes can be notable, and it appears that somebody is creating a page for all the episodes of the series. --Sharkface217 22:14, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. Episopdes may be notable, but there is no evidence that this one is. Pastordavid (talk) 19:52, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
• Delete as a non notable episode. Episodes, like people, can be notable but just because someone is trying to add them all to Wikipedia the notability requirements are not abandoned. Nuttah (talk) 10:00, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Wizardman 19:12, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Burning the Books

Burning the Books (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

non-notable tv episode. Ridernyc (talk) 17:45, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

• Redirect or delete as non-notable episode without much article content (WP:EPISODE). The notes section is unsourced, so it shouldn't be merged. – sgeureka ^t•c 20:49, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
• Keep and clean up As episodes can be notable, and it appears that somebody is creating a page for all the episodes of the series. --Sharkface217 22:14, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. Episopdes may be notable, but there is no evidence that this one is. Pastordavid (talk) 19:52, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
• Delete as a non notable episode. Episodes, like people, can be notable but just because someone is trying to add them all to Wikipedia the notability requirements are not abandoned. Nuttah (talk) 10:00, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Kurykh 20:37, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Rough in the Afternoon

Rough in the Afternoon (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

non-notable tv episode. Ridernyc (talk) 17:44, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

• Delete as non-notable episode without much article content (WP:EPISODE). Nothing to merge. – sgeureka ^t•c 20:49, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. Episopdes may be notable, but there is no evidence that this one is. Pastordavid (talk) 19:54, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Wizardman 19:12, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The Drugs Raid

The Drugs Raid (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

non-notable tv episode. Ridernyc (talk) 17:43, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

• Redirect or delete as non-notable episode without much article content (WP:EPISODE). The notes section reads like unsourced trivia, so it shouldn't be merged. – sgeureka ^t•c 20:48, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
• Keep and clean up As episodes can be notable, and it appears that somebody is creating a page for all the episodes of the series. --Sharkface217 22:14, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. Episopdes may be notable, but there is no evidence that this one is. Pastordavid (talk) 19:54, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
• Delete as a non notable episode. Episodes, like people, can be notable but just because someone is trying to add them all to Wikipedia the notability requirements are not abandoned. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nuttah (talk • contribs) 10:01, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Wizardman 19:12, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] It's Not Such a Bad Job After All

It's Not Such a Bad Job After All (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

non-notable tv episode. Ridernyc (talk) 17:43, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

• Redirect or delete as non-notable episode without much article content (WP:EPISODE). The notes section reads like unsourced trivia, so it shouldn't be merged. – sgeureka ^t•c 20:48, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
• Keep and clean up As episodes can be notable, and it appears that somebody is creating a page for all the episodes of the series. --Sharkface217 22:14, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. Episopdes may be notable, but there is no evidence that this one is. Pastordavid (talk) 19:55, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
• Delete as a non notable episode. Episodes, like people, can be notable but just because someone is trying to add them all to Wikipedia the notability requirements are not abandoned. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nuttah (talk • contribs) 10:02, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Wizardman 19:12, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Long Odds

Long Odds (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

non-notable tv episode. Ridernyc (talk) 17:42, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

• Redirect or delete as non-notable episode without much article content (WP:EPISODE). The notes section reads like unsourced trivia, so it shouldn't be merged. – sgeureka ^t•c 20:47, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
• Keep and clean up As episodes can be notable, and it appears that somebody is creating a page for all the episodes of the series. --Sharkface217 22:14, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. Episopdes may be notable, but there is no evidence that this one is. Pastordavid (talk) 19:55, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
• Delete as a non notable episode. Episodes, like people, can be notable but just because someone is trying to add them all to Wikipedia the notability requirements are not abandoned. Nuttah (talk) 10:04, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Wizardman 19:12, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Clutching at Straws (The Bill)

Clutching at Straws (The Bill) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

non-notable tv episode. Ridernyc (talk) 17:42, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

• Redirect or delete as non-notable episode without much article content. The notes section is unsourced, so it shouldn't be merged. – sgeureka ^t•c 20:44, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
• Keep and clean up As episodes can be notable, and it appears that somebody is creating a page for all the episodes of the series. --Sharkface217 22:15, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. Episopdes may be notable, but there is no evidence that this one is. Pastordavid (talk) 19:55, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
• Delete as a non notable episode. Episodes, like people, can be notable but just because someone is trying to add them all to Wikipedia the notability requirements are not abandoned. Nuttah (talk) 10:04, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete and redirect - there was a clear consensus for deletion. Further, there were no secondary sources attesting to notability. TerriersFan (talk) 18:07, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Funny Ol' Business - Cops and Robbers

non-notable tv episode. Ridernyc (talk) 17:41, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

• Redirect or delete as non-notable episode without much article content. The notes section reads like trivia and shouldn't be merged. – sgeureka ^t•c 20:45, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
• Keep and clean up As episodes can be notable, and it appears that somebody is creating a page for all the episodes of the series. --Sharkface217 22:15, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. Episopdes may be notable, but there is no evidence that this one is. Pastordavid (talk) 19:55, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
• Delete as a non notable episode. Episodes, like people, can be notable but just because someone is trying to add them all to Wikipedia the notability requirements are not abandoned. Nuttah (talk) 10:03, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete, while episodes can be notable, there is no evidence that this particular episode is notable. Pastordavid (talk) 17:37, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] A Friend in Need

A Friend in Need (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Non-notable tv episode. Ridernyc (talk) 17:40, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

• Delete. The "Notes" section is mostly triva not relating to the episode itself, and should be removed. After this, article will mostly be a plot summary, which violates WP:EPISODE. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 17:43, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
• Redirect or delete as non-notable episode without much article content. The notes section reads like trivia, so it shouldn't be merged. – sgeureka ^t•c 20:46, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
• Keep and clean up As episodes can be notable, and it appears that somebody is creating a page for all the episodes of the series. --Sharkface217 22:15, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Keep - Peripitus (Talk) 05:01, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Belvidere Mall

Belvidere Mall (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Non-notable mall in Illinois, claims to be first mall in its county but no sources can be found to verify this. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 16:37, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Malls-related deletions. —Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 16:47, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
• Comment I was trivially able to find this developer obit which confirms it was " Lake County's first indoor shopping Mall". I'm not sure if that's enough for inclusion even if citeable; it was never really expanded and is a fairly small mall by today's standards. The virtual tour confirms that it's basically a strip mall with some cul-de-sac hallways. I guess despite the claim I'm leaning delete. --Dhartung | Talk 19:30, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. Very weak claim to notability. Not likely strong enough to meed WP:ORG. Vegaswikian (talk) 22:42, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Placebo Effect (talk) 17:34, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

• Keep, as it now has 3 cites. Proof now exists in the article that it was the first mall in Lake County, and one of the first in the Chicago area. Bearian (talk) 17:56, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
• Keep per Bearian -Drdisque (talk) 19:30, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
• Weak Keep, I can't read the full text of the CS Times article, so I can't verify if the article indeed states the mall was the first in the county. I'll lean towards keep as long as the claims in the article are supported by the citation. Justin ^chat 19:32, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
• Keep Claims in article and sources provided satisfy the Wikipedia:Notability standard. Alansohn (talk) 01:27, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep as obviously notable public broadcast company. Bearian (talk) 17:26, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Cincinnati Public Radio Inc.

Cincinnati Public Radio Inc. (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Reads like an advertisement--information in articles can easily be split between WGUC and WVXU. Blueboy96 18:51, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletions. -- Gavin Collins 11:58, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
• Keep, at least for now. The article needs a rewrite to focus on the organization. The station information belongs in the articles on the stations. Vegaswikian (talk) 22:29, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. The claim that they have roughly 140,000 listeners asserts notability. RFerreira (talk) 22:49, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

The question for me is "what's in the article that can't be discussed in the station articles?" Not much that I can tell. Blueboy96 13:46, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Placebo Effect (talk) 17:21, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. The Placebo Effect (talk) 17:43, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] List of fictional tobacco products

List of fictional tobacco products (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Both totally unsourced as well as as a text book violation of WP:NOT. In other words listcruft. There is nothing to show that this should be notable enough for an article, hence it is simply a list of loosely associated items. Per same argument I also nominate

• List of fictional gemstones

EconomicsGuy 09:00, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

• Delete both, as unsourced. There is a fictional jewels category. AnteaterZot 20:21, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
• keep - that's the very point of wiki kernitou talk 07:39, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
• Weak delete both per nom, better categorised.--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 12:16, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Placebo Effect (talk) 17:19, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

• Delete List of fictional tobacco products. not sure about the gemstones (yet). Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 17:25, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
• Delete both as unsourced and non-useful lists. Bearian (talk) 17:33, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge with Birmingham Nature Centre.--Kubigula (talk) 04:37, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Babu (red panda)

Babu (red panda) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

This panda escaped for four days and made the news for a couple more. No lasting impact, no encyclopedic value, however. An interesting story, but ultimately quite trivial. Biruitorul (talk) 17:20, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

• Weak keep (edit)Merge and redirect to zoo article about Birmingham Nature Centre.(end edit) In the earlier AFD, I argued for keeping the article on the basis that there were several stories in reliable sources with substantial coverage about the escape/capture. Since then, I have revised my views per the essay WP:NOTNEWS to say that just because there was a flurry of coverage of some cute animal, some crime, or some bizarre water cooler story, that news coverage does not automatically entitle the subject to a permanent encyclopedia article. However, in addition to the coverage of the escapes and recaptures, there has been coverage of the animal as an attraction at the zoo independent of the "pandamonium" created by the escape, as shown by some of the "non-escape" coverage disclosed in the Google News archive. A zoo animal is not inherently "non-notable." Edison (talk) 18:16, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
  • • Comment If a person, thing, or animal has some reliable sources, but seems to amount to a stub, merger into a broader article is appropriate. No prejudice against splitting out a separate article if future coverage provides info for espansion. Edison (talk) 18:47, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
  • A fair point, but isn't that 2003 BBC page for children? And I agree, a zoo animal is not inherently non-notable, but there's a big gap between Ling-Ling and Hsing-Hsing (who clearly are notable due to their political connections) and this one. Biruitorul (talk) 18:35, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
• Speedy Keep: WP:NOTNEWS isn't a guideline, it's an essay. The article clearly passes WP:N and unless WP:NOTNEWS becomes a guideline, the premise of your argument doesn't hold water. Justin ^chat 19:39, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
  • OK, and WP:N is a guideline, not a policy, which, I may add, WP:IAR is, so the premise of your argument doesn't hold water. More to the point: many subjects could be encyclopedia articles but aren't -- simply because Babu may happen to fit WP:N doesn't translate into a requirement that we keep an article on him. Our goal is, or should be, to create an intelligent, scholarly work, and including mention of what is in essence a curious but rather trivial incident in my view cheapens rather than enhances the project. Biruitorul (talk) 20:02, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
    • Are you kidding me? By pointing out WP:IAR is a policy and WP:N and WP:NOTNEWS aren't you prove MY point. Babu does fit within WP:N. It may not fit within WP:NOTNEWS, but since WP:NOTNEWS is an essay, not a guideline (or policy), no one has to conform to it. It passes WP:N and it doesn't fail any other notable policy, so my vote stands. WP:NOTNEWS sounds far too much like I don't like it to me. Justin ^chat 07:05, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
      • Hardly. IAR can be invoked in the event that a lesser policy (which all are, except NPOV and DICK) prevents the building of a better encyclopedia. As WP:N is doing that in this case, I'm here to remind us that IAR takes precedence and mandates deletion or at least merger. Biruitorul (talk) 01:33, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
• Merge and redirect to Birmingham Nature Centre, just drag and drop. Within the history of that centre this is a noteworthy event, but there's nothing to suggest that an entire article needed for Babu. If there were wider ramifications and links to other subjects that'd be one thing, but all I can see is "we seem to be missing a critter", "what's that up that tree?" and "fetch a stick, a bloody big one". Fine, but we don't need the thing's life history. Someone another (talk) 02:17, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Merge and redirect. Nice catch, I didn't realize there was a related article already, my reasoning is per WP:DICT as opposed to WP:N, but a merge is more appropriate either way. Justin ^chat 07:16, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. I went and merged everything already. Wizardman 03:43, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Election Results, Mayor of Cincinnati, Ohio (Primary Election)

Election Results, Mayor of Cincinnati, Ohio (Primary Election) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

While articles on elections and election results are fine, I don't quite see the need for a seperate article specifically for the primary elections for the mayoral seat in one city. I would say redirect to Election Results, Mayor of Cincinnati, Ohio, but this wonky title doesn't seem to be a better search term. Lawrence Cohen 17:09, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

• Redirect to the wonky Election Results, Mayor of Cincinnati, Ohio for now. Then, start thinking about moving that one, and fixing the (then double) redirect. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 17:15, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
  • I suggest 2001 Cincinnati mayor elections by the way, but that's of later concern. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 17:22, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
    • Redirecting from such a wonky title is no use. Merge content and delete is a better option. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 17:27, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
• Delete as a fairly absurd slide down a slippery slope. We are an encyclopedia, not a place where the minutiae of local politics are exhaustively recorded. Biruitorul (talk) 17:23, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
• As the creator of the article, I would be satisfied with Merge with the general election results for the Cincinnati mayoral elections. And I would argue that primary election results for a major city's mayoral race do not constitute "minutiae." Acsenray (talk) 17:30, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

I would. Consider this: Cincinnati is the 56th largest city in the US. So let's say we keep this, establishing the precedent that all primaries for all mayoral elections in America's (to pick a round number) top 60 cities deserve articles. Multiply that by about 25 (primaries have existed for roughly a century and terms are usually four years), and voilà, you've got yourself 1500 "articles" detailing information that consists of, well, minutiae (as opposed to encyclopedic information, which mayoral general elections, as a general rule, simply are not, not to mention primaries). Add in non-US primaries and you're good for another few hundred at least. Given that even NYC (a city vastly more important that Cincinnati) doesn't have separate primary articles, there really is no defensible case to be made for maintaining this bit of trivia. Biruitorul (talk) 18:32, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

• Merge with Election Results, Mayor of Cincinnati, Ohio for now. That article should probably be broadened into a general article Mayor of Cincinnati, Ohio. If we don't even have that there's very little point in shoveling some election results into odd places they won't be found. --Dhartung | Talk 20:10, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. There is insufficient sourcing and notability for an independent article on this character, consensus agrees. The target for a redirect and merge is unclear (actor or series), even assuming one is warranted, which has not been shown. Xoloz (talk) 15:35, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] President Harris

President Harris (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

This is a character that does not have real world information to establish notability. The information is covered within the various film articles, and there is no current assertion for improvement. Also, several other character articles from this series have also been deleted. TTN (talk) 16:58, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

• Keep in all honesty, I think characters recurring in a couple of movies or books are notable. I think this bio is akin to the Simpsons character Kent Brockman or others. Shiva_eVolved 17:08, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

• Do you mean notable as in subjectively popular or as in that there are likely sources out there? If there were sources available, I'm pretty sure one of the three or four past AfDs would have shown them. TTN (talk) 17:15, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

• Delete sorry - that Disco Stu example showed the fallacy of my previous reasoning. Shiva_eVolved 17:17, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. Not notable beyond film, and this information easily fits within the main articles. Xymmax (talk) 17:19, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
• Delete — not notable. --Jack Merridew 18:53, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
• Merge to Leslie Nielsen or to Scary Movie 4 Mandsford (talk) 19:19, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletions. —Quasirandom (talk) 20:12, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Not a notable enough character to warrant an article, and all relevant information has already been merged into Leslie Nielsen's article. Would need more sources of significance of character, impact on films, and sourced information. --Nehrams2020 (talk) 22:20, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
• Keep as it is a notable character in a notable series of movies played by a notable actor. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 18:30, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
• Delete: Per WP:FICTION --SimpleParadox 18:32, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
• The article fails to demonstrate notability; I suggest deleting and then redirecting it to the first movie he appeared in; which would be 3, according to the article. I (talk) 23:39, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
• Keep this article is very well written, there's nothing wrong with it.
  Music1193,(Talk) 12:55, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

  Note to closing admin — see: [6], [7], [8] where above is first signed as being by User:Music2611, but is actually by User:Music1193 and then anon User:85.191.41.117 changes it to the "correct" username. --Jack Merridew 13:52, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

• Redirect to Leslie Nielsen. --Lockley (talk) 07:58, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Redirect to Magic in Harry Potter. The Placebo Effect (talk) 17:28, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Felix Felicis

Felix Felicis (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

The page shows no indication that the toic has recieved significant coverage by multiple, independent secondary sources, as required by WP:NN. There is also no real world information that any article on a fictional topic should be based around (WP:NOT#PLOT, WP:FICT, WP:WAF) and I do not think any could be found. Guest9999 13:39, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Delete - Notability must be established through reliable sourcing, and so far there is no demonstration that it has any. Judgesurreal777 17:02, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

• Redirect to Magic in Harry Potter. Possible search term. Eluchil404 (talk) 04:05, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Pastordavid (talk) 16:56, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

• Redirect per Eluchil404. JohnCD (talk) 17:12, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
• Redirect per above. Xymmax (talk) 17:22, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. No evidence of notability. Pastordavid (talk) 17:43, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Kent_McManigal

Kent_McManigal (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Person has absolutely no notability. Was a "candidate for president", but never actually participated in any debate, ran for a party, ran any substantive advertising, received a notable endorsement, or did anything worth noting. Only external source is a candidate platform comparison page, the information for which was contributed by the candidate himself and thus is not noteworthy. While WP:Bio is not razor-like in its precision, he does not meet any of the three criteria listed as potential guidelines for notability of a politician. Considered speedy delete, but figured regular delete would be a better option. Stump (talk) 16:52, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. I'm sure there are many thousands of people who don't get on the ballot on each election. Shiva_eVolved 17:19, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom -Drdisque (talk) 19:33, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
• Delete not notable - Dumelow (talk) 20:38, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Singularity 02:13, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Understanding Apples

Understanding Apples (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Non-notable self-published book (Outskirts Press, the supposed publisher, is a pay-to-play operation). The author's article was recently deleted, but the AfD neglected to list the article on the book; I feel that was an oversight and am correcting it by creating this AfD. —David Eppstein (talk) 16:50, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. Shiva_eVolved 17:21, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Non-notable. --Orange Mike | Talk 18:28, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Non-notable, vanity-published volume. nancy ^(talk) 18:32, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 04:33, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
  • (Comment I apologize for messsing up the orange theme that was going on this page. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 04:35, 13 December 2007 (UTC))
    • comment How could I resent a member of the BrewCrew? (next year they'll do better). --Orange Mike | Talk 16:08, 13 December 2007 (UTC) in Milwaukee, in pain

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Singularity 02:15, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] WHAW-19 Hawkinsville

WHAW-19 Hawkinsville (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Hoax; resource/service does not exist Mhking (talk) 16:23, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

• Delete, not notable and doesn't seem to have a website, which is strange for what claims to be a web-based TV broadcaster. Possible WP:HOAX - Dumelow (talk) 16:36, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

• Delete looks like a hoax. Shiva_eVolved 17:26, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. I doubt it's a hoax, but a quick Google search seems to indicate that the content is not verifiable. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 17:50, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. It looks like a hoax and it is certainly unverifiable. Nothing about this article checks out. An "Anderson Sports Group" comes up as an non-media related enterprise. This web-based TV station has no URL and nothing like it can be found on the web. • Gene93k (talk) 19:37, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
• Delete -- very likely a hoax. Google turned up nothing but this article -- not even a website. Also I find it odd for them to use a channel number for something available only on the web. -- azumanga (talk) 01:56, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. This is all I could come up with: There's no TV station with the call letters WHAW. There used to be a WTAU-19 in Albany, GA, but that's a good 70 miles away, and I can't find any connection between the two. No search hits on the web-based station. Finally, checked cable TV listings for zip code 31036 via Titantv.com to see if it might be a local cable station. Nope, the cable companies in the area all use 19 for something else. Squidfryerchef (talk) 18:45, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. Pastordavid (talk) 17:09, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Spoonerville

Spoonerville (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

This article asserts no notability through reliable sources, and as such is just an in-universe repetition of plot elements from the Goof Troop TV show articles. As such, this material is not appropriate for the encyclopedia, is also entirely duplicative and can be safely deleted. Judgesurreal777 03:47, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

• Delete: Not notable. It should be mentioned the main article (which it already is). - Rjd0060 04:24, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Placebo Effect (talk) 16:18, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

• Delete non notable fictional place. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 16:21, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
• Delete not notable and only merits a mention in the main article - Dumelow (talk)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete and recreate if she becomes notable. --Oxymoron⁸³ 09:20, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Katelyn jolley

Katelyn jolley (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Violates WP:COI. Does not meet WP:BIO (yet). She very well might in the future. She won an online voting competition for new singers but that alone is news but does not by itself satisfy WP:BIO. Gtstricky^{Talk or C} 16:03, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. --Evb-wiki (talk) 16:53, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Shiva_eVolved 17:30, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
• Weak delete - finishing first in a national contest, even if it's online, is doing pretty well, really; there are several news articles about her victory, as well, though they seem to mostly be local coverage. However, I think she can probably wait until she's got a record or two under her belt and more fits WP:MUSIC. Tony Fox (arf!) 21:34, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, recreate in future if she becomes notable --Storkk (talk) 20:32, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. John254 00:50, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Cape Cod Commission

Cape Cod Commission (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Non-notable local organization. Even though it's a government organization, it's not notable -- lots of cities and counties have land use commissions. This one has done nothing to make itself notable. Mikeblas (talk) 15:56, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

• Smerge no more than a paragraph to Barnstable County, Massachusetts unless this has been exceptionally controversial (i.e. outside of the county itself). We don't need articles on county-level agencies. --Dhartung | Talk 16:18, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
• Weak Merge (see below) It seems possible that this may be more than just a county land use commission, as Cape Cod (Barnstable County) is a fairly unique place, and this commission was created at the state level. However, I think the burden of proof rests on anyone who would assert notability. I would change my position to "keep" if significant coverage can be found in secondary sources (e.g., Boston Globe) to indicate that this is more than just a county agency. It should also be noted that this article was created by an SPA and remains in basically the same form. --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 16:38, 12 December 2007 (UTC) Changed from "Weak merge" to "Merge" per arguments below. --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 19:41, 13 December 2007 (UTC) Changed to "Keep", as burden of proof is now met. See below. --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 20:21, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
• Keep There are numerous Boston Globe articles readily available on Google News, with significant coverage including this one, which indicates that the Commission has been involved in a very notable debate over offshore wind farms. Perhaps if the article had reflected its role in the wind farm debate, it's notability would have been less in question? Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:48, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletions. —• Gene93k (talk) 16:52, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

• Keep two separate notes in NYTimes and Globe show an independent, functioning agency. Shiva_eVolved 17:23, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Please add these references to the page, so that we can evaluate them. --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 17:30, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

references have been added, for your evaluation. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:56, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Thank you, Shawn. After reviewing these, I think I still recommend that this page be merged. The wind farm controversy is adequately covered at Cape Wind, and anything else can be mentioned at Barnstable County or Cape Cod. --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 20:31, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

• Strong keep based on 60 seconds with Google News: 30+ mentions in the last 30 days; >3000 press mentions in Google's news archives search. --A. B. ^(talk) 18:43, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

The number of WP:Googlehits is not a valid reason either to keep or delete an article. Looking through your hits, the vast majority seem to be due to Cape Wind, which already has an article. The few others are local in scope, and "organizations whose activities are local in scope are usually not notable." --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 19:38, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Comment -- I believe this is a misinterpretation of WP:GOOGLEHITS, a section within the essay, Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions. Read it carefully -- it discuss reliable sources vs. raw web search engine results; another essay, Wikipedia:Search engine test gives the topic a fuller treatment. Google News is not a web search engine -- it searches news media. And Google News' recent implementation of an archive search tool gives Wikipedia editors a powerful tool to quickly find reliable sources in about 60 seconds. For many topics, I don't think an AfD should be initiated until the nominator has at least run a Google News test. Like it or not, the Cape Cod Commission is clearly notable. See the references in the article -- the 1989 New York Times article predates the Cape Wind controversy. --A. B. ^(talk) 02:33, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

• Strong Keep Per above points. --Sharkface217 22:18, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
• KeepThe sources--even the recent sources in GN, are sufficient. Its activities go back further than that. I wouldnt make it a general rule, but this particular commission is notable. DGG (talk) 02:36, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Comment I've only had the pleasure of visiting Cape Cod a couple of times in my life, but it is such a tiny, fragile, and sought-after area -- home to many prominent and powerful people -- and it's not surprising if this Commission has garnered more notability than similar bodies in other parts of the US. This is not a precedent to include every county commission in the country. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:12, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

• Keep After my above comments, A.B. added a reference to a 1988 news story concerning the creation of the commission. This shows a general notability beyond county issues and the current Cape Wind controversy, and is what I was looking for. I would like to see much more of this in the article, as it is the heart of the notability question in my opinion, but this is at least enough to keep the article. --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 20:21, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy keep, nom withdrawn with only keep !votes present. Non-admin closure. sh¤y 17:43, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The Angry Video Game Nerd (show)

The Angry Video Game Nerd (show) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

First of all, this is a repost (articles relating to AVGN or James Rolfe have been deleted in many different iterations), secondly its simply not encyclopedic or notable in the scope of Wikipedia Mr Senseless (talk) 14:59, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

• Keep. The show's popularity has increased dramatically since earlier incarnations of the article. I agree that an article 4 months ago would be premature, now the issue is quite different. Since then, the show has produced (and sold out of) a DVD and been featured on international radio on the Opie and Anthony show. In fact, the show is far more popular now than Chris Crocker - whom also deservingly has an article. The show is known in the United States, Europe and even parts of Asian and India. If you like, I can work on the popularity section to better given references to international interviews, articles, etc....
  Mostly, the show is popular in the gaming subculture. Admittedly, mainstream people are not completely familiar with the show, but that is also true of many topics worthy of an article in Wikipedia.
  I realize that this issue might be a magnet for fanboyism. While I loath Chris Crocker, I agree that he deserves an article. In either case, I am also a great advocate of Wikipedia - not just a "fan". Check my contribution page. Thanks for your time. - DevinCook (talk) 15:17, 12 December 2007 (UTC).
• Strong Keep on the grounds that this show's notability and verifiability has in fact been established. The AVGN character has been featured on the Opie and Anthony show on XM Radio on more than one occasion. James has also been featured on G4TV, CNN, and Spike TV in the last several months. SashaNein (talk) 15:59, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
• Strong Keep. Again, Chris Crocker, another YouTube celebrity, has his own article, so why shouldn't Mr. Rolfe? He is also connected to the large websites ScrewAttack, a subsidiary of GameTrailers. I think that proves AVGN's notability. Liscobeck (talk) 16:21, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
• Strong Keep. AVGN is a production of ScrewAttack, licenced to GameTrailers.com, which is run by MTV-Viacom. Besides the notability previous voters have mentioned, I feel this is addition info worth adding. Stump (talk) 16:56, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. If everyone under this catagory[9] is deserving of their own article, I think the Angry Video Game Nerd is too. Takuthehedgehog (talk) 17:01, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. Well, that's what I get for being complacent and postponing making an argument against this on the article's talk page, thinking that this wouldn't happen. First, reposts are not black marks. Articles are frequently readded in improved form after circumstances change or new facts come to light, and it's not remarkable for someone to request a deleted page's restoration in his userspace and retool it into an acceptable version. Articles should stand on their own merits instead of those of their previous iterations; there's no reason to do otherwise other than impatience, and one of the things this project definitely is not is in a hurry.
  I'm currently editing in info about said new merits.
  (edit conflict) Second, regarding those merits, I've reviewed the sources available for the article and found them an eclectic bunch from different parts of the world, but sufficient. That's the Internet for you. Non-English references are acceptable - as they happen to be vital for articles on things in non-English-speaking countries - with a citation of the original text provided. The Angry Video Game Nerd show has appeared repeatedly on a nation-wide radio show, though that nation was Canada, and has had multiple non-trivial appearances in print, here and in the largest gaming magazine in Poland. There's an assortment of other things, but a separate article is already justified. Now, we still have to get a Swedish editor to translate (or ask one of those who have already said they can) and get a Polish editor to find a copy of that magazine and translate, but those are issues of article improvement; as is loudly and often said, AfD is not cleanup. Nominations for deletion have to be against what an article can become, not what it is at the present moment. --Kizor (talk) 17:47, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
• I'm withdrawing my AfD due to WP:SNOW and that even though I don't personally feel that the AVGN or Chris Crocker are encyclopedic, technically this article does pass WP:WEB now. Mr Senseless (talk) 17:34, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
• Thank you. If you delete a wikipedia article it should be lisanova, or lonelygirl13, or chris crocker. The AVGN has been on the radio, has a sold out DVD, ECT...

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Singularity 02:17, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Craig McConnell

Craig McConnell (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Football (soccer) player does not appear to be notable - no evidence he has played any first team games for any club --Snigbrook ^(talk) 14:46, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

• Delete. Nothing from Google suggests he achieved notability, although he was a player at Hibs and Coventry.--Michig (talk) 19:37, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
• Delete did not make the first team for either Coventry or Hibs therefore fails WP:BIO..... ChrisTheDude (talk) 21:06, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
• Delete: Not notable. --SimpleParadox 21:09, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Fails WP:BIO. пﮟოьεԻ 57 22:10, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
• Comment: I doubt it is a valid defence, but the originating editor has asked on the talk page that the article at least remain until he gets a chance to merge it into an article on the school/home town. Kevin McE (talk) 22:20, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

I've replied there to tell him that the article, which is surely set to be deleted per this debate, should still remain up for another four days or so..... ChrisTheDude (talk) 22:24, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

That note was left on the talk page nine months ago (8 March), the user has not made any edits since 13 March. --Snigbrook ^(talk) 00:22, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Athletes-related deletions. -- DoubleBlue (Talk) 05:07, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, totally non-notable, fails WP:BIO, no merge either. Qwghlm (talk) 11:56, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. Davewild (talk) 19:48, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Dragon Swords MUD

Dragon Swords MUD (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Non-notable game, unsourced, no reliable third-party sources --Snigbrook ^(talk) 14:12, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

• Delete no third party coverage or other evidence of notability. Percy Snoodle (talk) 14:49, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
• Delete No independent coverage to establish notability; listings at MUD genre sites don't cut it. Maralia (talk) 16:53, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game deletions. Someone another (talk) 01:47, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Singularity 02:20, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 12 Prospect Street North Bennington Vermont

12 Prospect Street North Bennington Vermont (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

NN house, I couldn't find one source that proves that Sherley Jackson lived there, fails WP:V, prod removed, do not merge and Delete Secret ^account 14:00, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

• Delete, random address w/ no established notability in itself and dubious notability via association. Chris Cunningham (talk) 15:02, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. Not notab.e -- Mikeblas (talk) 15:57, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, takes more than this to make an author's temporary accomodations notable. --Dhartung | Talk 16:21, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Unverifiable, and probably not notable anyway. Maralia (talk) 17:01, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom and above. Bearian (talk) 00:33, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
• Delete because it is not notable to Wikipedia guidelines and seems to be made up entirely of original research. –Dream out loud (talk) 02:42, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. John254 00:48, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Kingsmead Technology College

Kingsmead Technology College (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

nn high school, No Reliable sources exists even though I searched, nothing at google news nither, prod removed Delete Secret ^account 13:54, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

• Keep high schools or their equivalents are notable. RMHED (talk) 15:22, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
• Keep per RMHED. Justin ^chat 19:46, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Please, while high-schools are considered "notable", they need to have the Reliable sources first, if not, it should be deleted. Secret ^account 21:53, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletions. —Noroton (talk) 03:44, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
• Keep substantial high school, that is a specialist school as a technology college, that is notable for operating a sixth form on behalf of two other school and is part of a group of schools operating in an unusual collaboration with a college of further education. Despite what the nominator says, reliable sources are available and will be added progressively over the next day or two. TerriersFan (talk) 04:02, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
  • While sources has been added, one id a directory, one is a local news story, the regular website, and a passing mention, plus a borderline notable alumni, not convinced. Secret ^account 22:36, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
• Keep per above. High schools are notable and it has been the subject of secondary independent sources like the BBC. --Oakshade (talk) 05:55, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
• Keep - Quite a well improved article, well sourced with multiple secondary and independent sources used, hence passes WP:N in my opinion. Camaron1 | Chris (talk) 17:34, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
• Weak keep: The article has at least one claim to notability: its Investor in People status. I'm not familiar with this award. I'm surprised to see so many citations for so many ordinary things: a name change, the appointment of a new deputy education director, an exchange program, being rated Satisfactory, a new gym and money for grounds, a play, absenteeism statistics, and so forth. It's hard to assume good faith for the addition of these sources, which appear to be added purely to inflate the apparent notability of the article. Still, the article has content and at least some kind of a claim, so I'd be reluctant to delete even if the award turned out to be as common as I suspect it is. CRGreathouse (t | c) 21:58, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

• While I didn't add sources to this article, I frequently do to other articles in AfDs to demonstrate notability of the topic. That is in no manner a bad faith effort. If there is evidence to support the notability of any topic, all editors should be aware of it. Editors should always be encouraged to improve any article at any time. Even Wikipedia:Deletion policy and Wikipedia:Guide to deletion encourages improving an article during an AfD. --Oakshade (talk) 00:02, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

I always support improving articles, especially those in AfD. I just don't thinkthose things are notable or cite-worthy. CRGreathouse (t | c) 03:04, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Kurykh 20:34, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] KIS Sivar

KIS Sivar (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Article has no assertion of real-world notability. Lacks any reliable sources and is entirely original research and in-universe plot summary/trivia. Had redirected to work in which it appears, but edit was reverted as "vandalism." --EEMIV (talk) 13:37, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

That is harsh and mean to say. 'More?' 14:36, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

• Delete, fancruftastic. Chris Cunningham (talk) 15:02, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
• Delete for reasons summed up by the nominator. Nuttah (talk) 18:47, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was nom withdrawn based on the substantial rewrite. Closed by the nominator. EconomicsGuy (talk) 16:44, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm being given too much credit. I didn't rewrite anything. I just added a few paragraphs. Note, by the way, that the book didn't exist at the time of the last deletion discussion. Uncle G (talk) 20:31, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Copenhagen Free University

Copenhagen Free University (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Self-established self-proclaimed "university" in Copenhagen. Not only is this not an institution of learning on any level, it is also utterly non-notable. So, delete per no assertion of notability as well as general lack of reliable sources. I guess I could have nominated for speedy but this has been here for 4 years with no improvement of any significance. There is apparently an old VfD which I have been unable to locate. Hence this AfD rather than speedy as I do not know what happened at that VfD and nominating articles for speedy after they have been kept per VfD/AfD is a bad habit. EconomicsGuy (talk) 12:44, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

• Addendum The VfD is here. EconomicsGuy (talk) 13:19, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
• Based on the rewrite I withdraw the nomination EconomicsGuy (talk) 16:36, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Not being a real university doesn't stop it having a page here as long as it is notable. Sadly that doesn't seem to be the case. Alberon (talk) 13:31, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. No, it is not a university, it is an art collective, and there is no deception on that point (other than some probably good-faith miscategorization). Properly referenced to two independently published books. What exactly is the claim of non-notability here? You're going to have to engage those sources directly to reach me. --Dhartung | Talk 16:28, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

• My apologies -- those were added post-AFD by Uncle G. --Dhartung | Talk 16:33, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

• • Comment No problem. The current version is significantly better than the one I nominated. The version I nominated is here and did not contain the same sources. Based on the rewrite I withdraw the nom. EconomicsGuy (talk) 16:36, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. Pastordavid (talk) 17:46, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wing Commander technology and vehicles

Wing Commander technology and vehicles (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

In-universe list of trivia and blurbs of plot summary not substantiated by reliable sources. None of these devices/technology is notable. --EEMIV (talk) 12:42, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game deletions. Someone another (talk) 12:46, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

• Merge - should be merged into Wing Commander (franchise). Fangz of Blood 16:24, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Why is this laundry list of uncited trivia worth merging anywhere? --EEMIV (talk) 16:28, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

• Delete - Per WP:GAMECRUFT User:Krator (t c) 01:05, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom, Krator. We're not a place to copy the game guide to. --Jack Merridew 09:09, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
• delete Wikipedia is not a game guide. Nuttah (talk) 18:49, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete, unsourced original research. Pastordavid (talk) 17:48, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] List of prostitution-related jargon

List of prostitution-related jargon (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Procedural nom. This was a deleted prod which I restored per a request on my talk page. The original concern was: "Unsourced list for over a year, Wikipedia is not a slang dictonary" After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 12:04, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Delete - Neologisms. ViperSnake151 13:38, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

• Delete per my comment in the original prod. Secret ^account 13:38, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
• Comment If only Senator Craig had been able to see this before his trip to Minnesota. Mandsford (talk) 19:21, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
• Delete An unsourced, WP:OR disaster. Spellcast (talk) 09:55, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
• Full disclosure: I was the original creator of this list, which I intended primarily as scaffolding for building a series of articles on the topic -- it's become a dumping-ground for unsourced stuff, delete as unsourced original research, per other commenters. -- Karada (talk) 17:38, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, although it's a shame to do so. Cheers Karada. --Lockley (talk) 05:03, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Merge and Redirect the character to List of Star Trek characters: G-M (done); Keep actor without prejudice to re-listing. BLACKKITE 11:50, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Leslie (Star Trek)

Leslie (Star Trek) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

This article clearly does not meet the requirements of the general notability guideline expressed in WP:N. The single reference given in the article does not constitute "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". The coverage in that source is simply trivial and is not enough to assert notability. There was a previous AfD for this article in which some people cited WP:FICT, but WP:FICT is now heavily disputed as it fails to adhere to either WP:N or WP:V. I also think that the closing admin simply did a head count instead of assessing the validity of the comments. —gorgan_almighty (talk) 12:43, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

I am also nominating the following article about the actor who played this minor character, because there is no indication of notability, and the only reference given is to Memory Alpha, which isn't a reliable source for either verification or assertion of notability:

Eddie Paskey (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

• Delete both as nominator, for above reasons. —gorgan_almighty (talk) 11:15, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
• Given what this article says, he should definitively be merged, not deleted, but I'm not sure whether List of Star Trek characters: G-M is more appropriate or Redshirt (character). Others will know better. – sgeureka ^t•c 11:46, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

• Redshirt (character) already uses an image of this character as an example, and includes the reference listed in this character's article. I can't see anything else worth merging, the rest seems too trivial. —gorgan_almighty (talk) 11:57, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

• Keep Both As pointed out during an earlier nomination, Leslie did have some lines on the show. And further, there are all sorts of minor characters on List of Star Trek characters who have articles of their own. Watchsmart (talk) 14:55, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

• Having a few lines in a show does not constitute notability. Only significant coverage in reliable secondary sources can assert notability. And WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not a good enough reason to keep something. The other articles will be dealt with in time. —gorgan_almighty (talk) 15:35, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

• Delete both, WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS isn't a good argument and the whole point of redshirts is that they're nonentities. Chris Cunningham (talk) 15:06, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
• Keep both, at least until the desicion is made on W:FICT. --Ye Olde Luke (talk) 15:18, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
• Delete fictional page as cruft, keep actor's page as minimally notable. JJL (talk) 15:45, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. Non-notable fictional character. -- Mikeblas (talk) 16:13, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
• Delete both. I'm not a Trekkie, I'm a Trekker bordering on a Trekkist, but this just isn't notable by any standard. I explicitly omit the "cute little corners of Wikipedia" standard. It's suitable for Memory Alpha or Wikia's Memory Beta, but doesn't pass WP:FICT. --Dhartung | Talk 16:47, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. Notable character and actor. 86.136.83.63 (talk) 16:48, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
• Keep Eddie Paskey, merge Leslie S. Trek As a bit player in a cult favorite that's aired over and over, he's notable. Indeed, nearly every actor associated with the original series is a part of the culture of the show. Paskey was on five of the episodes, had a name, and even had a role that even casual fans remember. On "This Side of Paradise" (the one where spores made it where nobody on the Enterprise gave a shit about their job), he's the guy who gives the "f--- you" response to William Shatner's bold "This is MUTINY, mister!" (something like, "Yeah, I guess it is"). One of the print magazines devoted to the show dubbed him the "King of the Redshirts". As with Michael Barrier, he's one of those people you've seen som many times, you eventually say "who WAS that guy"? Mandsford (talk) 19:38, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletions. —Quasirandom (talk) 20:12, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

• Keep the actor, merge the character. I note, btw, that a lot of the !votes above seem to be about only the character. —Quasirandom (talk) 20:14, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
• Keep Eddie Paskey, merge Leslie into List of Star Trek characters. His article is destined to remain a non-notable stub forever, and would be better treated by being merged into a list; but Paskey's article has enough notable content to justify existence in its own right. Terraxos (talk) 20:25, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
• Delete character - Star Trek is notable, every minor character is not, including this one. What's next, articles on individual tribbles? Kirk's quarters? The actor may be able to be established as notable - delete too, if not improved by the time this AfD is closed. --Jack Merridew 21:27, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
• Keep Eddie Paskey, merge the character unless more evidence found. Paskey has some coverage including this NYT article.[10]. Starlog issue #143 ("King of the Redshirts") covers him, but I don't have that source in hand. • Gene93k (talk) 21:31, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
• Keep actor, Merge and redirect character. Paskey, as a character actor, does achieve the notability standards, but the problem is that he's not always Lt. Leslie in Trek, as is explained in the article. He does quite a bit, but as a minor character, probably belongs in the list of Trek chars. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 22:20, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
• Delete the gun, merge the canoli Er ...Delete As a fan, this character has little notability in universe. The actor can be kept based on some of the minimal reference material provided. LonelyBeacon (talk) 22:38, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. Gotta have a sense of humor and fun! Wasted Time R (talk) 23:43, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

• To improve clarity, I have struck through the above unhelpful comment. —gorgan_almighty (talk) 10:43, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

• And I'm unstriking it. I'm a serious editor with 28,000 edits. My input to the AfD process is to keep the article, on grounds of "cute little corners of Wikipedia", on grounds that Star Trek is special because it created modern fancruft as we know it, and yes on the grounds that a few articles deserve to exist just because their existence is humorous. And it's up to the admin that closes this AfD to decide how much weight to give my input, not you. Wasted Time R (talk) 13:29, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Warning Although editing of articles is freely done, you are not allowed to edit other people's comments, Gorgan. The closing administrator does not need anybody's assistance in understanding the discussion, nor should Wasted Time have to "waste time" undoing vandalism. Please note that anonymous edits are easily verified as part of the editing history. Mandsford (talk) 04:47, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

• Comment seeing the nom. strike out keep comments is....distressing. JJL (talk) 15:00, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

• Keep. Recurring character on the original incarnation of a vastly influential and important program, and actor who played that character as well as several others. Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:08, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
• Delete character or merge to appropriate character list. (Indifferent about the actor.) Insignificant per WP:FICT. Eusebeus (talk) 23:40, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
• Merge Leslie; Keep Eddie. The actor has several other roles - and to say his primary character isn't notable isn't to say he isn't notable. That's 59 episodes over two years (plus other roles). •97198 talk 14:55, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
• 1. Delete Leslie because he is a trivial character who only received trivial coverage which centred around his triviality.
  2. Abstain Eddie because I think WP:BLP should be relevant here, but I'm no expert on that policy.
  3. Wish these had been two separate nominations.--Yannick (talk) 04:41, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Seconded. Could we please split these two up? --Ye Olde Luke (talk) 05:57, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

• Merge/delete Leslie into list of characters. There is a word for this, and it is known as fancruft. A minor character is not noteworthy of an encyclopedia article. There are Star Trek wikis for this. No comment on the actor. The Evil Spartan (talk) 09:34, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - I'm unable to find any verifiable reliable sources - the book in there isn't really enough to assert notability. Actor may, however, be notable - that should be listed separately. — Dihydrogen Monoxide _(Review) 10:05, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Keep, nom withdrawn, and a re-write/stubification done that satisfied BLP concerns. Well done, all. Pastordavid (talk) 17:52, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 2007 De Anza baseball players rape case

2007 De Anza baseball players rape case (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

unsalvageable WP:BLP violation; tabloid-style account of unproven rape allegations is unsuitable for Wikipedia Wikidemo (talk) 10:53, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Note - the article has been completely rewritten since the version nominated for deletion. Please consider that when interpreting the following discussion. Thx. Wikidemo (talk) 23:32, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Further note - I am now withdrawing the nomination. The article as rewritten satisfies any notability and BLP concerns, in my opinion, and seems to be stable. Would someone neutral please care to close this? We still need to think of a new title, something like the new lead "The 2007 De Anza College baseball investigation", but we do not need an AfD to do so. Thanks to everyone for all your thoughtful contributions. This little part of Wikipedia is that much better for our efforts. - Wikidemo (talk) 01:53, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

• Delete as nominator, without prejudice to re-creation as a proper article. I struggled with this because if you remove all the inappropriate news coverage and BLP violation there is possibly a notable subject in there. However, the article is so rife with BLP violations, and in such poor organizaiton as an encyclopedia article, that it would take a major effort if not complete blanking/stubbification. Even the title is a BLP violation. It asserts that a rape occurred and that the baseball players were involved, yet they were never even charged and there are no reliable sources that say either. They say only that an accusation was made. Further, the article describes the rape of an identifiable underage girl, and claims she was intoxicated. It then accuses onlookers (similarly, with reliable sources only that the accusation was made, not that it happened) of facilitating the rape and refusing to cooperate with police. And all that's just in the WP:LEAD! The rest of the article includes a "timeline" full of unreliable statements and naming of names. That requires extreme care but instead we have a mess of an article. The whole thing is so wrong I would not know where to begin. So unless anyone is ready to rewrite the article from the ground up, the best thing to do is to delete. It could probably simply be blanked as a BLP matter without AfD, but that would probably create a dispute. This has already been mentioned at WP:BLP/N, and via a WP:PROD tag that was removed. So I thought the best next step is to work through the issue here. Thanks, Wikidemo (talk) 11:14, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Note - the rewritten version as of today is acceptable from my point of view. If it or something like it sticks and does not get reverted I will withdraw this nomination. I think we should wait another day or two, though, to make sure this gets settled rather than dropping the AfD prematurely. Wikidemo (talk) 16:36, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

• Comment - I'm not certain of whether this article will have lasting notability or not, which was mentioned in the original prod as a reason for deletion. There doesn't appear to be a lack of verifiability (the article has 92 separate references, though some, such as [11], appear to be duplicated as different refs, rather than using "ref name"), but there is certainly an issue with the quality of the article. Indeed, my only involvement in the article prior to notification of this AfD was adding a tone tag. Pretty much the entire article, in general, from its tone, to the wording of the headlines, appears to be more reminiscent of the free tabloid that anyone can edit. The timeline section, for example, quickly stops being a timeline of the case itself, and becomes a timeline of all news stories about the case, with the story headlines provided after the date, which is misleading. However, I also realise that poor quality is not really a good reason for deletion, so I am relatively neutral on whether the article should be kept or deleted. If it is kept, however, it would probably need stubbing temporarily while being rewritten. --Dreaded Walrus ^{t c} 11:56, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Further comment - most of my concerns have been addressed in the current version of the article. Dreaded Walrus ^{t c} 21:24, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

• DeleteI think we've agreed before that not every news event is worthy of an encyclopedia article and this is no different. We do not have an article on every alleged rape happening worldwide; its unfeasible and not in line with the goals of this project. This incident had no lasting significance that would indicate needing an article here and in its current state is little more than a coatrack for maligning the players and prosecutor. I believe that WP:BLP also falls in here as we are obviously doing harm to several living people as Wikidemo illustrated above. Should consensus be that there should be an article on this topic at a title elsewhere, the current article will still need to be deleted as there is no salvageable history. Shell ^babelfish 14:52, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

• Keep This alleged rape has received widespread coverage over an extended period. It has implications beyond the average alleged rape in that it has occasioned widespread comment about the handling of the case by the prosecutor, and because of the notoreity before the incident on the part of the college baseball team which is alleged to have had involvement. The 90 plus dozens of references appear to offer the basis for satisfying the requirements for compliance with WP:BLP policy, in that there are enough reliable sources to back up statements in a coherent account of the event and its aftermath. That said, there is clearly room for improvement in the tone and exposition of the article, which is not in itself a basis for deletion. Also, such a contentious case requires ongoing editorial supervision. Those two facts are not a basis for deletion. {{WP:N]] is satisfied. Edison (talk) 16:28, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
• Keep The article provides dozens of independent reliable sources and there are dozens more. The incident is treated as an incident (not an article with an involved individual as a title) and provides clear evidence that this is a subject that has been deemed a notable subject of news coverage for an extended period of time. The prose could use some work, but notability has been established. Alansohn (talk) 17:49, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

• I don't see it as a notabilty problem nearly as much as a WP:NPOV and WP:BLP issue. I think most of the commentors are willing to grant notability. Xymmax (talk) 18:00, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

• Delete. I agree, a proper article could be written, but WP:BLP considerations are to my mind so paramount that this should be deleted, or at least returned to a stub w/ the references intact, and start over. First, the title "rape case" has to go. There are is no charge of rape (only the prosecutor can do that) and there is no "case." We should not associate that term with any identifiable group of people. The NPOV problems are significant as well, as there appears to be an underlying assumption that the assault occurred (as it very well may have, but it isn't WP's place to make that case). For this type of article to work, each and every line needs to be sourced, and someone needs to watch to make certain that the sources state exactly what the article claims they do. This is bad enought that I plan to try to spend some time fixing it when I get off work. Xymmax (talk) 18:00, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Your vote to delete is inconsistent with your statement above; if notability is established, and there really are WP:NPOV or WP:BLP issues here, they should be properly addressed, rather than swept under the rug via deletion. I cannot ascertain the truth of this incident, but I can certainly verify that the presumption of notability has been amply demonstrated by the extensive and ongoing media coverage documented in the article. Alansohn (talk) 18:54, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

I respectfully disagree. WP:BLP provides for immediate deletion of improperly sourced biographical material, and by extension, if the article is made up solely of such material, the entire article could be deleted. The nominator clearly has similiar concerns, as you can see from the discussion of this article on the BLP noticeboard [here]. Still, I am not interested in deleting this article if it can be salvaged, and I will take a stab at it tonight. If it seems salvagable I happily will change my vote. Hopefully someone will address the articles problems in the meantime. Xymmax (talk) 20:05, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

• Weak Keep: Notability has clearly been established but the article needs a very serious rewrite to cover the WP:NPOV problems. Give the article a chance to address the issues it has, relist at a later date if they aren't. Justin ^chat 19:54, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, as there are enough BLP problems as to render the article unsalvageable. We need a new title anyway, so I would propose starting from scratch with these references and a proper title. ZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 20:47, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
• Keep though it certainly needs some editing. (I deprodded it, thinking it needed a discussion at least before deleting). The article is careful to omit the names of all the directly involved parties, except one who was charged in a not directly-connected felony, and the DA is a public figure. I am not sure there are actually any BLP violations (except probably the other felony) --nothing is reported beyond what is in the newspaper accounts. But the detail is otherwise altogether excessive. rightly or wrongly, accusations of such matters involving college athletes are always major news stories--and all the more so because of the developments in cases elsewhere. There is therefore extensive newspaper coverage, and there is probably more by now, and the article also needs updating. I think the title is probably suitable--what would be a better? It would be clearly inappropriate to use the names of the parties. I look forward to seeing what Xymmax makes of it. I should have started the trimming when I deprodded. I will help by removing the section on the hit-and-run case, which is clearly prejudicial. DGG (talk) 23:13, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't think that omitting the names solves the BLP problem because they are all identifiable individuals. The newspaper accounts are (variously) dead links, unreliable sources (editorials, blogs, etc), mischaracterized (a newspaper's account of what a single witness said, or of what police claim a witness said, is reported as fact or as what all of the witnesses said), or impertinent salacious details that provide a narrative of a rape rather than encyclopedic content that is relevant to the notability of the event. The notability, if any, is not that a rape occurred but that an apparent rape by a college team was not prosecuted, leading to criticism and protests. For that issue the age, appearance, etc., of the victim and perpetrators, the alleged cheering of bystandards, the girls' team breaking down the door, the details of her drunkenness, etc., are unnecessary. Excessive detail in an article would simply be a style matter fit for clean-up. Excessive derogatory detail about living people is a BLP issue, particularly when poorly sourced, repeated as hearsay, etc. I think your pruning helped a bit but in my opinion the article needs something much more drastic. I just deconstructed the lead paragraph in the talk page, and my conclusion is that only 1/4 or less of the lead paragraph is salvageable. If that gets done it could leave a short, but arguably notable and properly sourced article that does not violate BLP, so perhaps something can be saved and the article kept. However, if it does not happen it is better to delete the article than to leave a BLP violation. We shouldn't just leave the article sitting around in hopes that someday someone fixes it. That's what AfD is all about. Articles either get fixed and kept, or not fixed and possibly deleted.Wikidemo (talk) 14:31, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

• OK, I've completely blanked and rewritten the article into a stub. I ended up resourcing most of the article, because San Diego Mercury Observer doesn't allow free access to its archived material. As a result, I couldn't access large portions of the orginal citations. Please note that I did this only as a stop-gap measure, because I agree w/ Wikidemo that the thing should go. However, I did give it a good faith effort to write something less problematic. I did not alter the title, something that I feel must be done, because I was afraid that I would interfere w/ the Afd. I also went into far less detail, because at this stage the facts are too unclear for us to give the matter proper encyclopediac treatment. Please feel free to criticize here or further edit. I do hope no one will feel it necessary to outright revert. :) Xymmax (talk) 16:39, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Now that's an encyclopedic treatment of the subject. I'm still concerned that the older revisions should be deleted per WP:BLP; the problem existed from the first edit [12] and the majority of contributions were made by that same editor. Since a good argument has been made for the encyclopedic worth of the subject, moving this to a different title using Xymmax's start would be appropriate. Excellent writing Xymmax! Shell ^babelfish 17:30, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Disagree entirely. We delete articles when they violate WP:BLP, we don't delete articles that at one time violated WP:BLP but no longer does. Justin ^chat 03:40, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

The proposal was to delete that part of the article record that contained BLP violations, not the article itself. We often delete or de-link things from the article history that are so problematic that we don't even want people reading the history - privacy violations, copyright violations, apparent defamation, etc. I don't see a problem with doing that but I don't think it's necessary. There was nothing in the article that isn't already in newspapers or all over the web. I think it was inappropriate for a Wikipedia article because we don't want to add to the noise, but the noise is already there so deleting our history won't really help anything. Wikidemo (talk) 03:53, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

My apologies I misread that. But it seems that those actions are taken in extreme circumstances, which this doesn't seem to qualify (as stated above). Justin ^chat 06:58, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

• Comment Deleting history would be appropriate only if it did contain names, or material that had not been widely disseminated, which does not seem to be the case. DGG (talk) 02:39, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
• Weak delete This article is somewhat at the borderline of lasting notability for keep/delete to me. I'm leaning to delete with no bias against recreation if something comes out of this. Also no bias against including a very short section in e.g. the De Anza baseball team article Nil Einne (talk) 14:05, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. Davewild (talk) 19:52, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Imperial DikuMUD

Imperial DikuMUD (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Non-notable online game. Claims to be "one of the longest running and largest Dikumuds in the world" but that isn't enough to establish notability under WP:N, WP:WEB or WP:RPG/N; and in any case there is no coverage from independent sources. Percy Snoodle (talk) 09:59, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

• Delete, 1992 sounds impressive, but there's more than a handful of MUDs that have been running that long. No independent sources provided, and the article reads like a gameguide, which Wikipedia is not. Lankiveil (talk) 10:07, 12 December 2007 (UTC).

• Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game deletions. Someone another (talk) 12:46, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - No independent coverage is cited in the article; none of the 308 google hits for "Imperial DikuMUD" look promising. Marasmusine (talk) 14:11, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

• Tequila - per WP:ADVERT User:Krator (t c) 01:07, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Singularity 02:38, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Mill(insult)

Mill(insult) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

PROD removed by originator. This article is unsourced, the subject is a neologism, it is not notable (the article itself says it is little known), and Wikipedia is not a dictionary or guide to slang. JohnCD (talk) 09:45, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

• Delete, WP:NEO, and obviously a self-admitted little-known slang term has serious notability issues. Lankiveil (talk) 10:08, 12 December 2007 (UTC).
• Delete As above. If it is little known then it simply isn't notable. Alberon (talk) 10:52, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
• Speedy delete. Magioladitis (talk) 11:53, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Please do not abuse the Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion. Uncle G (talk) 12:15, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
• I can verify that this slang term is increasing in popularity, and has appeared in multiple articles related to bullying im the Midlands region of England.

. Honourableone (talk) 13:47, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

• Strong Delete per nom. (I was going to prod the article, but found that the author had removed the AfD template, which I restored.) —Travis^talk 14:34, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Also see related discussion: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mill centre —Travis^talk 22:08, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
• Strong delete under WP:NEO. Unfortunately, the note from user:Honourableone is not a reliable source. note also we are not a dictionary. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 22:21, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. No reliable sources provided. (No prejudice towards Honourableone, it's just that his observations are not documented.) --Blanchardb-^{MeMyEarsMyMouth}-timed 02:53, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
• Keep One source provided. Honourableone (talk) 15:29, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
  • A school newsletter. That's it, where the term "Mill Centre" turned up twice in the document. It makes no allusion to the definition, just that it is used someplace, which is nowhere near enough to get it into Wikipedia - and in this context, this tells me that you created what amounts to an attack page. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 04:27, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
• Delete no notable neologism. Nuttah (talk) 18:58, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - I am not so sure about Mill Centre, which appears to be largely identical. If the use of Mill as an abbreviation for Mentally Ill can indeed be attested, the right place is in a dictionary not an encyuclopaedia. Peterkingiron (talk) 20:55, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was withdrawn nomination (see nominator comment at the bottom). — Rudget _{Contributions}

[edit] Agriculture in Senegal

Agriculture in Senegal (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

While not normally a fan of deleting missing pages on Africa, this article has serious POV problems and lacks sources. Deleting the POV on the page but keeping it would result in essentially no information left on the article. Fails WP:SOURCE Thomas.macmillan (talk) 07:00, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletions. —Thomas.macmillan (talk) 07:06, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

• This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 09:04, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

• Keep, Stubify & Cleanup, agree that the page is in terrible shape, but a complete rewrite of the article doesn't require a deletion first. Lankiveil (talk) 10:09, 12 December 2007 (UTC).
• Keep and rewrite/add cleanup + source tags as per Lankiveil. Lugnuts (talk) 11:54, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
• Keep and cleanup, article is notable but the present form needs work - Dumelow (talk) 14:51, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
• Keep per the above. Clearly a notable enough topic but as mentioned above it needs work. EconomicsGuy (talk) 15:18, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
• Keep now that it's been cleaned up. Biruitorul (talk) 17:10, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
• Withdrawn now that is has been cleaned up.--Thomas.macmillan (talk) 18:37, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. John254 00:45, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Double standard

Double standard (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

not enough sources or refreneces Phoenix X91 (talk) 00:56, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

• This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 09:05, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

• Weak Keep, surely there must be some sources for such a widely used term? I hardly think it could fall under WP:NEO. Lankiveil (talk) 10:11, 12 December 2007 (UTC).
• Keep and cleanup, a notable and widely used term - Dumelow (talk) 14:50, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
• Strong keep Lack of references is not, on its own, criteria for deletion, and there are certainly tons of available sources for such a common term. Maralia (talk) 17:09, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
• Keep and source, a fairly important topic. One of the problems is that the meaning has changed over time (initially "double standard of value" which meant more like "dual monetary standards supporting each other") and became adopted by women's rights activists at the height of the term's monetary popularity (late 19th century) as the double standard of morality between the treatment of men and women for sexual behavior. This remained the primary meaning of the term up until the 1960s when a variety of discourses emerged and appropriated it for racial and other disparities. Nowadays, post sexual liberation, there is no more need for the term and it has reverted to a sort of generic use, but the article fails to reflect this. --Dhartung | Talk 17:11, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
• Keep and source per above. Justin ^chat 19:57, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
• Abstain - The article currently has no sources. My suspicion is that sources can be found, and if that happens, I'll change my vote to keep. Editors have to keep a short leash on this article, though, and make sure it remains on topic since it is often horribly abused as a soapbox. Torc2 (talk) 23:16, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
• Keep but needs substantial rewriting. I don't think notability is an issue here - the term itself is inherently notable. However, the present article approaches the concept from the wrong angle and is unsourced. Creating a good article on this will be a major challenge, but there should be enough reliable secondary sources out there to draft something. Walton^One 20:04, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Singularity 01:37, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] VIP Air Ambulance

VIP Air Ambulance (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

NN, spam/ad Touchdown Turnaround (talk) 23:11, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

• Delete - spam. Also fails WP:CORP, as well as is unreferenced. AKRadecki^Speaketh 06:25, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

• This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 09:05, 12 December 2007 (UTC)